The “No Glass” logo that the café published on its website was developed and released (under a Creative Commons license) by a new London-based group called “Stop the Cyborgs.” The group is composed of three young Londoners who decided to make a public case against Google Glass and other similar devices.

“If it's just a few geeks wearing it, it's a niche tool [and] I don't think it's a problem,” said Adam, 27, who prefers only to be identified by his first name. He communicated with Ars via Skype and an encrypted Hushmail e-mail account.

“But if suddenly everyone is wearing it and this becomes as prevalent as smartphones—you can see it becomes very intrusive very quickly. It's not about the tech, it's about the social culture around it. If you think about what Google's business model is, it started as a search engine, and then Google Analytics. [Now, Google is] almost characterizing its [territory as being] the rest of the world. It's a loss of space that isn't online. [Google Glass] destroys having multiple identities, and I find that quite a scary concept.”

Adam admitted he has never actually used or interacted with Google Glass in person, but he said he has extensive experience with augmented reality and currently is a post-doctoral student specializing in "machine learning" at a London university that he declined to name. He added that he and two friends are behind Stop the Cyborgs.

“Most people [have] no idea what they were looking at”

On the Stop the Cyborgs site, the group raises a significant concern: namely, that there’s no obvious way to know when the device is on or what it’s actually doing (recording or not). Indeed, Adam’s fears may be warranted, based on The Verge’s own experience last month:

At one point during my time with Glass, we all went out to navigate to a nearby Starbucks—the camera crew I’d brought with me came along. As soon as we got inside however, the employees at Starbucks asked us to stop filming. Sure, no problem. But I kept the Glass’ video recorder going, all the way through my order and getting my coffee. Yes, you can see a light in the prism when the device is recording, but I got the impression that most people had no idea what they were looking at. The cashier seemed to be on the verge of asking me what I was wearing on my face, but the question never came. He certainly never asked me to stop filming.

Plus, it’s not hard to imagine a situation where photos taken by Glass could be checked against Facebook, Google+, or another social network. For now, Google hasn’t said what sort of facial recognition capability Glass will (or could) have.

"Google Glass is possibly the most significant technological threat to 'privacy in public' I've seen," Woodrow Hartzog, an affiliate scholar at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School, told Ars. "In order to protect our privacy, we will need more than just effective laws and countermeasures. We will need to change our societal notions of what 'privacy' is."

For now, at least one privacy-minded senator doesn’t seem worried.

"In the past, Google has taken a principled position in making facial recognition an opt-in service for its social network, Google+,” said Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) in an e-mail to Ars. “This gives me hope that this same kind of thoughtfulness will be applied to its roll-out of Glass. I’m looking forward to talking to Google more about its deployment of Glass and what it means for privacy.”

Sharon McKellar took this photo of Ars editor Cyrus Farivar using Google Glass at an event in Oakland last month.

“You're never going to see a stranger as a stranger again”

Still, though, we can only speculate about how society will react to such an expensive geek toy that will almost certainly spawn copycat devices that will get cheaper and more expansive over time.

“In generation two, when you've got better battery life and apps that do better face recognition—maybe we're crying wolf a little early to a certain extent—but [what happens when] you get to competing products?” Adam said. “The idea that you'll have recognition of objects and infrared tags so it will always know what you're looking at—that kind of thing, it will be gathering information. It's more the face recognition stuff that changes society. You're never going to see a stranger as a stranger again.”

That's a sentiment Hartzog echoed.

"Google Glass simply lowers the transaction costs of taking photos and videos and learning about your surroundings," the law professor said. "If Glass has a high adoption rate, it will significantly increase the likelihood of information that was assumed to be obscure or ethereal being discovered, recorded, and subject to publication. The law has yet to figure out how to unravel the fact that there are many situations where individuals expect privacy in public. So perhaps the best approach to this, at least initially, is a vocal, context-based opposition."

Even more interestingly, Adam admitted that part of why he’s afraid of associating his name with such a campaign is that it might hurt his chances in the industry where he hopes to get a job.

"I want to get a job with Google, eventually,” he admitted. “I'm part of that industry, so anything that I say in regard to that site could come back and bite me. I might not be able to afford my principles.”

Promoted Comments

I want to get a job with Google, eventually,” he admitted. “I'm part of that industry, so anything that I say in regard to that site could come back and bite me. I might not be able to afford my principles.”

Unless "Adam" is a pseudonym and lying about other information he gave ars it's probably too late; just obfuscating his surname is almost certainly insufficient. I doubt there're multiple 27 year old Adam's working on machine learning Phd's in London universities today.

The recording laws of your jurisdiction don't suddenly change. If it's illegal to record others' private conversations without consent now, it still will be when Glass hits the market. Small, easily concealed recorders have existed for many years already. There are plenty right now that cost a *fraction* of a Glass. No one is running around demanding that small, affordable recording devices be banned because they will destroy human decency. Well, probably someone is, but we have words for that kind of person.

Will there be issues, foreseen and otherwise? Probably. But we've been through this a hundred times in the past few decades.

It is silly to be afraid of people wearing their smartphone on their ear instead of in their hand. If you don't want recording in your establishment, then why haven't you had a sign up saying so for a decade already?

So in japan due to cultural preferences by law is required that any mobile phone containing a digital camera must emit sound whenever a photograph is taken. Privacy is a valid concern but the law is the tool to enforce and limit what technology can do.

If the world isn´t ready yet for a technology that comes before the right questions are answered then better hurry up, Google glass will sell like hot cakes and for good. Why focus on what it takes from us and not think of what it brings to the table, like an easy to use interface for people with disabilities, or as mandatory tool for hired babysitters etc.

“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” Henry Ford.

3 posts | registered Jun 29, 2008

Cyrus Farivar
Cyrus is a Senior Tech Policy Reporter at Ars Technica, and is also a radio producer and author. His latest book, Habeas Data, about the legal cases over the last 50 years that have had an outsized impact on surveillance and privacy law in America, is due out in May 2018 from Melville House. He is based in Oakland, California. Emailcyrus.farivar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@cfarivar

I want to get a job with Google, eventually,” he admitted. “I'm part of that industry, so anything that I say in regard to that site could come back and bite me. I might not be able to afford my principles.”

Unless "Adam" is a pseudonym and lying about other information he gave ars it's probably too late; just obfuscating his surname is almost certainly insufficient. I doubt there're multiple 27 year old Adam's working on machine learning Phd's in London universities today.

Really this is just an extension of the fear over cameras everywhere, except now the cameras are in the hands of individuals instead of the government, so you can't regulate how the pictures are used nearly as easily.

For another example of where this has happened already, just look at all of the footage online taken from Russian dashcams.

I'm not worried yet that Google is going to go all big brother on us, but it is something I'm going to keep an eye on.

Really this is just an extension of the fear over cameras everywhere, except now the cameras are in the hands of individuals instead of the government, so you can't regulate how the pictures are used nearly as easily.

For another example of where this has happened already, just look at all of the footage online taken from Russian dashcams.

I'm not worried yet that Google is going to go all big brother on us, but it is something I'm going to keep an eye on.

I have problems with both; unlike the feds Google can't use "anti-terrorism" or "tough on crime" to neutralize public objection. It remains to be seen if "oooh shiney" will be equally effective.

"Sharon Ron-McKellar took this photo of Ars editor Cyrus Farivar using Google Glass at an event in Oakland last month."

I just see a guy in glasses looking at a laptop. Is that the correct image?

OT: the recording or picture taking needs to be very easily visually identifiable. Turn the whole thing red? Flash white 3 seconds before a photo? With most other recording devices (excepting "spy" equipment) there are very obvious ques that a recording is taking place. Especially in the light of the "dongle joke" incident, photos of subjects can have unintended consequences.

I know that once you're out in public the expectation of privacy is literally out the door, but it does seem there should be a line drawn, and it might be the right time to drag the stick through some sand.

The recording laws of your jurisdiction don't suddenly change. If it's illegal to record others' private conversations without consent now, it still will be when Glass hits the market. Small, easily concealed recorders have existed for many years already. There are plenty right now that cost a *fraction* of a Glass. No one is running around demanding that small, affordable recording devices be banned because they will destroy human decency. Well, probably someone is, but we have words for that kind of person.

Will there be issues, foreseen and otherwise? Probably. But we've been through this a hundred times in the past few decades.

It is silly to be afraid of people wearing their smartphone on their ear instead of in their hand. If you don't want recording in your establishment, then why haven't you had a sign up saying so for a decade already?

So in japan due to cultural preferences by law is required that any mobile phone containing a digital camera must emit sound whenever a photograph is taken. Privacy is a valid concern but the law is the tool to enforce and limit what technology can do.

If the world isn´t ready yet for a technology that comes before the right questions are answered then better hurry up, Google glass will sell like hot cakes and for good. Why focus on what it takes from us and not think of what it brings to the table, like an easy to use interface for people with disabilities, or as mandatory tool for hired babysitters etc.

“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” Henry Ford.

The implications are enormous. Personally, they don't bother me much, as long as no one gets to amass huge private masses of the data collected from such devices. So the big questions are going to revolve around database size and transparency. In other words: if the Goog gets to have a few zettabytes of indexed and tagged video from basically everywhere, who will have access to it? Just the Goog? All of us? Some of us?

As others have stated, concealed cameras that are less conspicuous and far cheaper have been around for years. This even has a bright light indicating that it is taking a video.

Off Topic: Those power cords in that picture look like a fire (and tripping) hazard. There is a surge strip plugged into an extension cord, which itself is generally a big no-no. It also looks like there is at least one more surge strip plugged into that surge strip.

An "encrypted" Hushmail account? The company that encrypts their email accounts so well that they can surrender all the unencrypted data at a blow of a whistle? Somehow I don't think Adam is very tech savvy. If he were even remotely aware of what he's doing and cared about his privacy, he would be hosting his own mail server and encrypting his messages with PGP.

First and foremost, everything you do in public is not "private". The majority of the city populations now have a phone that can record and take pictures. That's how I get my entertainment through Reddit, all the funny photos provide via a device. Now I will just be able to wear it on my head instead of in my pocket. If you don't want to be identified, don't have a public profile for Google to search, or stay at home.

Hell, I'm still waiting for my implants as envisioned in cyberpunk lit.

I don't get the feeling that he's a luddite (did you even read what field he's in?). I get the feeling that he's concerned about the implications this brings to the table and is taking a cautious approach. I for one am thrilled someone's looking at this from another angle versus the "OMG IT'S GOOGLE IT'S AWESOME GIMME NOW!"

I get gadget lust, but I also understand that things need to approached with a sense of level-headedness. Eventually things will normalize, but voices from across the spectrum are something that should be encouraged and considered.

So please explain why anyone thinks their right to record my activities in pblic places trumps my right not to be identified, recorded, tagged, and posted in their 'life blog'? My right to be left alone trumps the hell out of your right to track whatever it is i'm doing.

Dont' be suprised to get a negative reaction for your arrogant invasion and publicationh of my personal space.

""I want to get a job with Google, eventually,” he admitted. “I'm part of that industry, so anything that I say in regard to that site could come back and bite me. I might not be able to afford my principles.”"

In other words, this guy is a complete hypocrite. You can't say augmentation is good, and then get all pissy about a specific augmentation type without ever actually having used the product. Either get a new career, or start criticizing things from a position of knowledge instead of knee jerks. Wearing a smartphone is not what I think most people would call being a cyborg.

I have mixed feelings about Google Glass. On one hand, yeah it's a little weird and scary to think about. On the other hand, I also accept the fact I've offloaded a large amount of brain activity for things like "remembering so-and-so's birthday" to computers, and this is just a step further down that road.

>>I know that once you're out in public the expectation of privacy is literally out the door, but it does seem there should be a line drawn, and it might be the right time to drag the stick through some sand.<<

This is how I see it: When we are in public, other people see us, and we don't mind, because chances are we are dismissed from their minds almost immediately. Memory is a fickle and funny thing, so no big deal. But with an always-on recording device, the footage could be stored forever, and gone through carefully looking for...well...anything really.

I think that's what people don't like about this.We all have our little quirks and secrets we don't wanted remembered...

First and foremost, everything you do in public is not "private". The majority of the city populations now have a phone that can record and take pictures. That's how I get my entertainment through Reddit, all the funny photos provide via a device. Now I will just be able to where it on my head instead of in my pocket. If you don't want to be identified, don't have a public profile for Google to search, or stay at home.

No one is arguing against this. The issue is the ease at which the information can be collected, tagged, collated, and data mined. It takes some effort to take a photo or video with a cell phone, and people can be seen clearly doing it. With GG, the ability to take videos, photos, or whatever clandestinely and easily increases significantly. Now imagine everyone wearing these things, always recording, always tagging and geolocating people and things; do you know how easy it'd be to abuse all that data?

We don't have armies of people walking around with their phones held up doing that now, but it could easily be done with GG. And this isn't to say it's illegal, because it's not when you're in public. That's not what people are worried about. People are worried about the implications of such ubiquitous data gathering.

Maybe we're worrying about nothing, and it won't be an issue. Maybe it'll cause huge riots. Discussion and debate is a good thing.

You know, I want to be excited about Google Glass, but after having glasses my whole life, and getting PRK last year, there's no way I'll willingly go back to glasses - even for an awesome hud and AR goodness. I just don't want to wear them.

So please explain why anyone thinks their right to record my activities in pblic places trumps my right not to be identified, recorded, tagged, and posted in their 'life blog'? My right to be left alone trumps the hell out of your right to track whatever it is i'm doing.

Dont' be suprised to get a negative reaction for your arrogant invasion and publicationh of my personal space.

I think you are confusing intent here. Who the hell is going to want to follow you around and film your life? Or my life? How do you suggest said person is going to identify you? Are they going to bother doing that for every randomer that passes through their video? You seem to be getting worked up over imagined slights with a device that isn't even available yet, assuming someone is going to have a massive interest in your life.

As has been said many times, the law is still going to be the ruler around here, and anyone doing something that violates your rights is going to be susceptible to law related actions. If not, people will kick off, and then they will be. I really can't understand a lot of the glass-phobia going on around here.

There are definitely going to be situations that make people re-think their stances etc on issues like privacy, but at the end of the day there always are issues with such shifts in paradigm (if, indeed, Glass becomes popular), and only though working through such things logically and basing conclusions on evidence are we going to advance. Right now though, people are making a massive fuss over absolutely nothing.

The law has yet to figure out how to unravel the fact that there are many situations where individuals expect privacy in public.

Actually it's pretty clear on that. There is no privacy in public, that's why it's called "public" and not "private".

I think some people are conflating anonimity with privacy. There's a big difference, and keeping the two separate would go a long way to aiding the discussion around "ubiquitous recording devices".

There's no such thing as "privacy" in "public" places. It's right there in the definitions of the words.

However, people expect to remain anonymous when out in public, and some even go to extreme lengths to do so (hats, glasses, beards, tinted windows, etc). Just look at all the issues around the paparazzi.

If Google Glass gets good facial-recognition software and can easily match people's Facebook/G+/Twitter/etc photos to real-time images, then "anonimity" in public goes right out the window. And that's probably what everyone fears.

Off Topic: Those power cords in that picture look like a fire (and tripping) hazard. There is a surge strip plugged into an extension cord, which itself is generally a big no-no. It also looks like there is at least one more surge strip plugged into that surge strip.

I am frankly a bit surprised that they do not give (or "give") these things away and make their money back on the data they collect.

wastedlife wrote:

Off Topic: Those power cords in that picture look like a fire (and tripping) hazard. There is a surge strip plugged into an extension cord, which itself is generally a big no-no. It also looks like there is at least one more surge strip plugged into that surge strip.

That's for those special kind of electrical needs where you know you shouldn't, but, you know, you gotta power your gadget SOMEhow.

oldfortraner wrote:

Wait till the fatal car wrecks start happening from Google Glassing while driving. Technology like this is nothing short of insanity.